Considering that cutting the deficit retards growth, and Obama inherited the Great Recession, this is pretty astonishing we've had this much deficit reduction without tanking growth. It does help explain, however, why growth has been steady but sluggish.

The CBPP says we need an additional 1.4T in deficit reduction, and that's it: our long term debt would be stabilized under our current economy. Which means, of course, if we could get the economy growing at a 3%+ clip again, the long term deficit is put on a downward spiral.

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

It just adds up the deficit reduction measures put into place since 2010. Its a meaningless number because the counterfactual isnt well specified and it ignores other deficit increasing legislation. Its both wrong and stupid, in other words.

__________________
Homer: [looking at watch] Two hours? Why'd they build this ghost town so far away?
Lisa: Because they discovered gold over there!
Homer: It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything.

You call it spin, but dispute none of it, and just claim it's not enough.

As a society we are so used to "spin" from both sides, that some don't even recognize it anymore...

Reductions in PROJECTED deficits are not the same as reductions in the deficit itself, just as reductions in PROJECTED spending are not real spending cuts. It's semantic sophistry--political demagoguery to baffle partisan buffoons with bullshit.

If you want to call it what it is, reductions in projected deficits, fine; otherwise you ain't bullshitting this bullshiter.

By the way...I assume your term "long term deficit" is a euphemism for national debt. We'll need to sustain 3%+ growth without real spending increases for a very, very long time to pay of the current debt--so real cuts should be a major part of the discussion as well. I'm just saying...

__________________
Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel, Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel, Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel, Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel...